Back
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
Mohammad Shahid Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Since common questions of law and fact are involved in the present batch of petitions, it is proposed to deal with them by way of a common judgment and order.
WP(C) No.107/2022
1. The petitioners claim to be farmers of various villages belonging to different districts in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir, who have filed this petition in a representative capacity to protect the interests and welfare of the farmers/orchardists of Districts Srinagar, Shopian, Baramulla, Pulwama, Kulgam, Budgam, Ganderbal and Bandipora. The grievance highlighted in the a/w connected matters present petition is that even when the tree spray oil/horticulture mineral oil, which is being sprayed in the orchards in the UT of Jammu & Kashmir is a scheduled item in the Insecticides Act of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and is required to be regulated strictly and that even when no manufacturing, sale, import, transportation and distribution/supply and stocking of insecticides can be permitted without registration in terms of the provisions of the Act and without a licence, all the aforementioned activities were being permitted to continue in gross violation of the provisions of the said Act an
The main legal principle established is that under the Insecticides Act, a change in the source of import for a registered molecule requires the application to be made under Section 9(3) and not Sect....
A licensed dealer of insecticides is protected under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and cannot be penalized without evidence of wrongdoing.
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
Interim order deciding merits without counter-affidavit is appealable judgment under Letters Patent; Sections 9(3) and 9(3B) of Insecticides Act apply distinctly.
Dealers cannot be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering.
The court held that mere possession of banned insecticide without evidence of intent to sell does not constitute an offence under the Insecticides Act, reaffirming strict adherence to statutory proce....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of prior sanction under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the specific regulations governing the sale of bioproducts....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
